Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 282, Valenzuela City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- Criminal Case Nos. 1804-V-18 to

1805-V-18
CHARLIE VILLANUEVA y For: Violation of Sections 5 and 11,
OLLETA, Article II of R.A. 9165
Accused.
x----------------------x

COMMENT ON THE PROSECUTION’S

FORMAL OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS

COMES NOW, accused CHARLIE VILLANUEVA y OLLETA,

represented by the Public Attorney’s Office, unto this Honorable Court,
most respectfully avers as follows:

Exhibit Particulars Comment

A Pinagsamang The defense objects to the admission
Sinumpaang Salaysay of these documents for being self-
ng Pag-aresto serving and biased.
B Affidavit of Attestation The allegation in the affidavit that the
of P02 Carlito G. Nerit, affiant ensured that the accused
Jr. underwent physical/medical
examination and that procedural steps
were taken during the conduct of the
physical inventory and photographs of
drugs and other items recovered from
the accused to ensure compliance with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
and its implementing rules and
regulations are self-serving. The
affiant failed to elaborate in his
affidavit how he made sure that the
accused was brought to the hospital
for physical/medical examination and
whether in the first place he was with
P01 Al Sanchez, P01 Melvic Pingad and
the other operatives composing the
buy-bust team when the accused was
taken to the hospital for medical
verification. Moreover, the affiant did
not elucidate the exact circumstances
which show that the apprehending

1|Page
 officers truly observed the chain of
custody rule. He merely averred that
the physical inventory and photograph
of the recovered evidenced were done
in the presence of Barangay Kagawad
Renato Bernardino and Manuel
Oliveria. Equally conjectural is his
assertion that efforts were exerted by
the apprehending team to secure the
presence of a media representative
supposedly to witness the drug
inventory at the place of arrest. He
does not have personal knowledge
about this because based on the
affidavit of P01 Al Sanchez and P01
Melvic Pingad it was P02 Lastimoso
who endeavored to obtain the
appearance of the media
representative at the place of arrest.
C Coordination Form

2|Page
 C-1 Pre-Operation Report Based on the affidavit of P01 Melvic
Pingad and P01 Al Sanchez the
briefing was conducted by PInspec.
Edwin Malaay (head of Police
Community Precinct [PCP] 2) at
around 2:30 in the afternoon on 11
October 2018 at PCP 2, Gen. T. de
Leon, Valenzuela City. Expectedly, the
briefing could not have been confined
to just the designation of P01 Melvic
Pingad, P01 Al Sanchez and P02
Lastimoso as the poseur-buyer, back-
personnel and coordinator with the
investigator, media and DOJ
representative and elected public
official, respectively; the giving of buy-
busy money and the placement
thereon of the poseur-buyer’s initials;
the specification of the pre-arranged
signal as indication that the poseur-
buyer has already purchased drugs
from the target person; and the
delegation of the other operatives as
perimeter security of the poseur-
buyer. Thus, the briefing must have
taken more than five or ten minutes so
that the police operatives can
meticulously plan how they would
execute the buy-bust operation
against the accused.

At any rate, after the briefing P01

Franciz Cuaresma was supposedly
tasked by the team leader, PInspec.
Edwin Malaay, to coordinate with the
PDEA for the buy-bust operation. The
documents, which are submitted to
the PDEA in connection with the
coordination relative to a buy-bust
operation, are coordination form and
pre-operation report. Based on the
records those documents were signed
by signed by PCInsp. Jowilouie B.
Bilaro (chief of the Station Drug
Enforcement Unit of the Valenzuela
City Police Station) and PSSupt. David
Nicolas Poklay (Chief of Police of the
Valenzuela City Police Station. The
1
Tayo na, Valenzuela!: The Official Website of the City Government of Valenzuela, “Philippine National
Police (PNP) – Valenzuela, http://www.valenzuela.gov.ph/government/article/200

3|Page
 C-2 PNP identification card The defense objects to their admission
of P01 Franciz Tadeo for being a mere photocopies of the
Cuaresma original identification cards, which is

2
See PDEA, “Regional Office NCR”, http://pdea.gov.ph/regional-offices/regional-office-roncr#contact-
details

4|Page
P-1 Identification card of consequently violative of the best
Manuel Oliveria evidence rule. The said rule requires
that the original document be
produced whenever its contents are
the subject of inquiry, except in
certain limited cases laid down in
Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, to wit:

(a)When the original has been lost

or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;

(b)When the original is in the

custody or under the control of
the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of

numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be
examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is
only the general result of the
whole; and

(d)When the original is a public

record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public
office.

In these consolidated cases, the

prosecution did not lay down the
predicate for the admission of
secondary or substitutionary evidence
in accordance with Section 5, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court which states that
when the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause
of its unavailability without bad faith
on his part, may prove its contents by
a copy, or by a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order
5|Page
 D Inventory of Seized The defense objects to the admission
Properties/Items of this document for being self-
serving.
E PNP Arrest and The defense objects to the admission
Booking Sheet of the of these documents for being
accused irrelevant. As held by the Supreme
Court in People vs. Rualo4, People v.
Bandin5, People v. Manzano6 when an
arrested person signs a Booking Sheet
and Arrest Report at a police station,
he does not admit the commission of
an offense nor confess to any
incriminating circumstance. The
Booking Sheet is merely a statement
of the accused's being booked and of
the date which accompanies the fact
of an arrest. It is a police report and
may be useful in charges of arbitrary
detention against the police
themselves. It is not an extra-judicial
statement and cannot be the basis of
a judgment of conviction.
F Medico-legal slip of the The defense objects to its admission
accused for not being properly identified by the
physician who issued the same,
namely, Dr. Severo C. Barba III. The
existence of this document was also
not among those which was stipulated
upon by the parties during the pre-trial
and elsewhere during the trial.
G Request for laboratory The defense objects to the admission
examination of these documents for not being
E-1 Mugshot of the properly identified by the persons who
accused signed the same. While the parties
I Request for Drug Test stipulated that P02 Carlito G. Nerit, Jr.,

3
See Orders dated 10 April 2019 and 29 July 2019
4
G.R. No. 70287, 31 July 1987
5
G.R. No. 104494, 10 September 1993
6
G.R. No. 86555, 16 November 1993

6|Page
 L Spot Report the investigator, prepared the request
for laboratory examination, request for
drug test, mugshot of the accused and
spot report, among others, and that
he can identify the same it is,
however, very glaring from the
Affidavit of Attestation that aside from
the said affidavit the only documents
which were prepared by P02 Carlito G.
Nerit, Jr. in connection with these
cases are the booking sheet and arrest
report of the accused. Hereunder
quoted is the pertinent portion of the
aforementioned affidavit for the
reference of the Honorable Court:

xxxx

I also secured pertinent data on the

personal circumstances of the arrested
persons [sic] and prepared as a
consequence thereof the booking sheet
and arrest report forming part of the
records of the case.7
H Initial Laboratory A reading of these documents would
Report still cast doubt on whether the alleged

7
See Arraignment/Pre-Trial Order dated 26 October 2018

7|Page
 H-1 Chemistry Report No. packs of chemical substance which
D-2188-18 were presented to PCI Jocelyn Belen-
Julian for laboratory examination and
which were tested positive for shabu
were the very same substance
allegedly recovered from the accused.
The stipulation the testimony of PCI
Jocelyn Belen-Julian was limited to the
result of the qualitative examination
and the drug-dependency screening
test that she conducted, her turn-over
of the specimen to the custodian for
safekeeping, her preparation of
chemistry report which indicated her
findings, and that she will be able to
identify the request for laboratory
examination, request for drug test, the
object evidence, chemistry reports,
and her signature on the chain of
custody form.8 There was no
stipulation or testimony on the source
from whom she obtained the
substance that she examined.
Moreover, there was no stipulation or
testimony on how PCI Jocelyn Belen-
Julian took precautionary steps in
order to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items,
that she received the seized articles as
marked, properly sealed, and intact,
that she resealed them after
examination of the contents thereof,
and that she placed her own marking
on the same to ensure that they could
not be tampered pending trial. These
things are required pursuant to the
ruling of the Supreme Court in the
case of People v. Pajarin9.

While the stipulations between the

parties herein may be viewed as
referring to the handling of the
specimen at the forensic laboratory
and to the analytical results obtained,
they do not cover the manner the
specimens were handled before they
came to the possession of the forensic
chemist and after it left her
8
See Order dated 27 November 2018
9
G.R. No. 190640, 12 January 2011

8|Page
 K Chain of custody form The defense objects to the admission
M to M-2 Photographs of of these documents for being self-
marking of seized serving.
evidence in front of the
accused
N to N-2 Photographs during
the conduct of the
drug inventory
O Photograph of seized
evidence
P Office Order No. 35 This document should not be accorded
from the Office of the probative value. Section 21 of Republic
City Prosecutor of Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic
Valenzuela City Act No. 10640 specifically requires the
insulating presence of an elected
public official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall witness the conduct
of the physical inventory of seized
items. Neither the implementing rules
and regulations of Republic Act No.
9165, as amended by Republic Act No.
10640 nor the guidelines of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
on the said implementing rules and
regulations nor any Supreme Court
decision expressly or tacitly state that
any person, like a casual employee of
the city government, can be deputized
by a city prosecutor to act as
representative of the National
Prosecution Service for the purpose of
bearing witness to a drug inventory.
This is a total distortion of the spirit
and intent of the framers of Republic
Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic
Act No. 10640. If this legal heresy will
be permitted this will set a dangerous
precedent and will open the floodgates
to abuse because even a scavenger,
mendicant, security guard, utility
personnel, ambulant vendor and the
like can be appointed as
representatives of the National
Prosecution Service.

10
People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018

9|Page
Q to Q-2 Three (3) pieces of The defense objects to the admission
100 peso bill marked of these things for being planted and
as APS-2, APS-3 and for being fruits of a poisonous tree.
APS-4 with serial
numbers D557696,
BL007958 and
AM742241, all with
date and signature
R to R-1 One (1) evidence bag
with markings “A” P01
Melvic M. Pingad and
signature of seizing
officer containing one
(1) piece small-heat
sealed transparent
plastic sachet
containing suspected
shabu marked as MMP,
with both date and
signature
S to S-2 One (1) evidence bag
with markings “B” P01
AL P. SANGCEZ 10-12-
18 and signature of
seizing officer
containing two (2)
pieces small heat-
sealed transparent
plastic sachet
U One (1) piece of
cigarette pack with
markings APS-7 with
date and signature
V Certified true copy of The defense objects to the admission
the police blotter of these documents for being self-
serving.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto

this Honorable Court to note this comment.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed
for.

Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 19 August 2019.

10 | P a g e
 PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
1 Floor, Metropolitan Trial Court Bldg.
st

Justice Hall Compound, C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,

Malinta, Valenzuela City

Through:

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP OR No. 035862 dated 8/1/18 / CALMANA
MCLE Compliance No. VI - 0006876 dated 3/20/18

Copy furnished:
ACP Aireen S. Agacita
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City

11 | P a g e